Wednesday, May 8, 2019

J. Warner Wallace's fallacious method of valuing human life: quote 'da bible, bro


This is my reply to an article by J. Warner Wallace entitled
Cold Case Christianity: From Where Does Value Come? 
 Posted: 06 May 2019 01:49 AM PDT
In the midst of all my collecting, I’ve gotten to wondering about the nature of value itself. If the value of comic books work in this way, does the value of anything else also rely on these same factors?
I have long believed human beings have value.
 Whatever value they have necessarily arises from other people's judgment, and is inherently relative.
As a police officer, the protection of human life is my highest priority.
Then you chose the wrong profession.  As a Christian, evangelizing the world must always be more important than enforcing secular laws.  Read Matthew 19:29.
Police officers are often dispatched to “welfare checks.” These calls come in a variety of forms and essentially boil down to people asking the police to check on someone to make sure they are okay. For example, we might receive a call from someone who lives in another state who hasn’t heard from their grandmother in a while. In response, we will go out to the grandmother’s house to make sure they are okay or see if they need help.

What is it that makes human life so valuable? Where does our value come from? Are we like the comic books I collect? Comic books get their value from the perception people have of them. Does our value come from those around us?
yes.  you are allowed to live when you conform.  If you are convicted of certain crimes, other people will deem you of less value and worthy of the death penalty.
I hope it doesn’t. If our value comes from the way the people or culture around us view us, then we might end up like the comic books I’m looking for, worth more in one shop or place and worth less in another.
That's precisely what reality says.  Unless you've been living under a rock, not everybody assigns you the same value.
But if value does not come from those around us, where does it come from?
Your question is illegitimate, we already determined that valuation comes from outside sources.  Inherent value is a contradiction in terms.
I’ve heard some people say that they can create their own sense of meaning or value. While it sounds great from a self-esteem standpoint, I think we can all admit to times, maybe many times, when we’ve felt personal doubt about ourselves and our value.
That doesn't mean self-valuation is problematic, it just means our self-imposed value changes with time.  We might like the idea of having consistent value, but that's not reality.
Just as the comic book with the “10 cent” cover price does not decide its own current value,
But the price was put there by somebody other than the comic book itself.
we cannot determine our own.
It is perfectly rational for a human being to dictate their own value, and uphold this even if it contradicts what other people or nations think.  Value is no objective or absolute.
There appears to be nothing in our opinion of ourselves that definitively sets our “price tag” or determines how we should be valued by others.
Value doesn't stop existing merely because it isn't definitive.  Otherwise, you'd have to say a certain brand of dvd player had no value just because two different people were selling them at different prices at two different garage sales.  Relativity obviously exists, it doesn't go away just because it refuses to coddle your childish need to prove everything in an absolute way.
God, as He is described by the Bible, has the ability to ground our value in his unchanging, holy nature.
 Then read Deuteronomy 28:15-63 and see just how easily the creator who alleges places great value on you, can turn around and start treating you worse than Hitler, even "delighting" to watch you suffer things like rape and parental cannibalism (v. 63).
Theism offers an opportunity to ground human value objectively.
 No, you worth changes with god's mood.  See above.  Obey and live.  Disobey and get ready to be raped and suffer extreme hunger and delusion.
God’s assignment of value transcends our personal opinions, temporary feelings or responses from friends and family.
 Since you clearly don't give two shits about addressing the best arguments atheists have against you, all you are doing is preaching the choir, and I choose to avoid wasting my time "refuting" your sermons.  They were never intended to attack serious skepticism, as is true for the entirety of your "crime scene" apologetics marketing gimmicks.

2 comments:

  1. a christian wrote :


    There were restrictions for Jews to associate with Gentiles at the time. Peter himself admitted that it is against Jewish law for a Jew to associate with or visit a gentile (Acts 10:28). This is not a matter of eating unkosher food –it is associating and visiting a gentile altogether! If the Jewish Christians are hesitant to do what Jesus commanded because of this law then is it fair to blame absence of oral tradition for the impasse? That is reason behind Peter’s vision –“Do not call anything impure that God has made clean” (Acts 10:15) . Peter is called to reach out to the Cornelius despite the Jewish law prohibiting him to associate with a gentile –as they are, not as potential converts.

    ::::::::

    1. eating non-kosher food (mark 7, matthew 15:11)
    2. visiting gentile
    3. worshiping a jewish jesus


    here is my confusion, are we to believe peter does 3, but has a problem with 1 and 2 because "restrictions for jews to associate with gentiles" ?

    if one of the REASONS for associating with gentiles is because of 1 above, peter had that solved, because he got it from "the horses mouth," right?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Looks like you've considered the viable possibilities. In light of the fact that Acts 10 and 11 present gentile salvation as some new shocking unexpected theological development that the poeple wouuld never have believed in apart from Peter's special vision on the matter, my own opinion is that either Acts 10 and 11 are making the apostles more anti-Gentile than they really were, as a pretext to make Paul and his Gentile intentions look more important.

      Or...Acts 10 and 11 are telling the historical truth...in which case Gentile salvation at that time was controvesial because Jesus never said anything about Gentile salvation to the apostles (i.e., the Gentile-friendly Jesus of the gopsels is nothing but fiction).

      The third option, that Jesus saved Gentiles but that in later years Peter and the church "just didn't get it", appears extremely unlikely. How much about Jesus' teachings would you remain stupid about, if he ran around with you physically on earth for three whole years (!?). Apostles can be thick-headed, but I refuse to believe they were fence-posts.

      Delete

Jason Engwer doesn't appreciate the strong justification for skepticism found in John 7:5

Bart Ehrman, like thousands of other skeptics, uses Mark 3:21 and John 7:5 to argue that Jesus' virgin birth (VB) is fiction.  Jason Eng...